trump

[Timjoebillybob]

Meh, it's apparently newsworthy, having your staffers jerk people around

Man who pulled protester revealed as Trump security - POLITICO

Watching the video I have no problem with it. From what I seen they were trying to evict the guy and he was trying to get away with them to the point of grabbing hold of another person. No idea about the laws there but in IN you can use all reasonable force to eject a trespasser. The force used appears to me to be reasonable.

]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3aLLegn75g

Keep saying that Trump wants violence, eventually if you lie hard enough and long enough someone might actually believe you.

Lets see what a police officer thinks after attending a Trump rally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q6jHad-XG0

For the first video how many previous rallies have had that statement? I'm guessing none or it would have been posted before. It's not 100% proof that Trump didn't incite violence. It could be that it's CYA.

For the second he states he doesn't know what happened but that the protestor assaulted the guy before getting his butt whipped. After watching the video from a couple of different angles, I'm calling BS. The guy assaulted the protestor straight up, there was no "self defense" involved. Which is why I'm guessing he was charged with assault and not the protestor.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump wants some "form of a trial" for journalists that write unfair things about public figures, if elected.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ing-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/

 

[chipbennett]

Nah...Trump is the one that wants to "open up the libel laws" so he can go after people that say mean things about him.

You mis-spelled "untrue and damaging".

 

[chipbennett]

Trump wants some "form of a trial" for journalists that write unfair things about public figures, if elected.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ing-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/

You mis-spelled "wrong". Here, let me quote Trump for you, from your own link:

...and I just think that if a paper writes something wrong — media, when I say paper I’m talking about media. I think that they can do a retraction if they’re wrong. They should at least try to get it right. And if they don’t do a retraction, they should, they should you know have a form of a trial. I don’t want to impede free press, by the way. The last thing I would want to do is that.

And what's wrong with holding "a form of trial"? Is that not what a libel lawsuit proceeding is?

 

[T.Lex]

You mis-spelled "wrong". Here, let me quote Trump for you, from your own link:

And what's wrong with holding "a form of trial"? Is that not what a libel lawsuit proceeding is?

I feel like we've done this before.

What counts as "wrong"? If I say Trump is fascist, is that wrong? Can he sue me (under this new libel framework)?

What if I say he sucks as a candidate?

There must be more than "wrongness" when it comes to libel of a public figure, otherwise, their hammers are bigger than our hammers.

 

[chipbennett]

I feel like we've done this before.

What counts as "wrong"? If I say Trump is fascist, is that wrong? Can he sue me (under this new libel framework)?

What if I say he sucks as a candidate?

There must be more than "wrongness" when it comes to libel of a public figure, otherwise, their hammers are bigger than our hammers.

You're missing the point. "Wrong" != "Unfair." "Wrong" != "Mean." The anti-Trump crowd are intentionally mis-stating Trump's position.

 

[T.Lex]

You're missing the point. "Wrong" != "Unfair." "Wrong" != "Mean." The anti-Trump crowd are intentionally mis-stating Trump's position.

But they aren't. Well, maybe the "mean" one is a misrepresentation, but the "unfair" part is absolutely true.

If libel laws move toward simply being "wrong," the results will absolutely be unfair. The people with power will have more of it, and people with less power will be muzzled.

 

[chipbennett]

But they aren't. Well, maybe the "mean" one is a misrepresentation, but the "unfair" part is absolutely true.

If libel laws move toward simply being "wrong," the results will absolutely be unfair. The people with power will have more of it, and people with less power will be muzzled.

Seriously?

Words have meanings. "Wrong" and "unfair" are not synonyms. In the context of libel, "wrong" means "false"; "unfair" means neither.

But, straw men are much easier to demolish, so Trump is mis-quoted as having said "unfair", rather than what he actually said, which was "wrong."

 

[T.Lex]

Seriously?

Abso-f'n-lootley.

And I'm surprised you're this willing to not take a single logical step toward critical assessment of Trump. Why?

If he told you to engineer something that would clearly not do what he wanted it to do, would you not say something?

Words have meanings. "Wrong" and "unfair" are not synonyms. In the context of libel, "wrong" means "false"; "unfair" means neither.

Speaking of misrepresentation (and reading comprehension) re-read what I wrote. I'm not saying they mean the same thing. I'm saying his "wrongness" standard would achieve unfair results. Words have meaning, and actions have consequences. How many more cliches do you want to use in this discussion?

But, straw men are much easier to demolish, so Trump is mis-quoted as having said "unfair", rather than what he actually said, which was "wrong."

This is not a straw man. This is about taking what he says a single logical step into the real world.

Or does he not merit that treatment because you implicitly trust him to make America great one libel lawsuit at a time.

 

[chipbennett]

Abso-f'n-lootley.

And I'm surprised you're this willing to not take a single logical step toward critical assessment of Trump. Why?

If he told you to engineer something that would clearly not do what he wanted it to do, would you not say something?

That I am refuting a straw man argument against Trump is not evidence that I am unwilling to take a single logical step toward critical assessment of Trump. That I argue that his position with respect to libel laws has been misrepresented is not an argument that I agree with or support his position.

Speaking of misrepresentation (and reading comprehension) re-read what I wrote. I'm not saying they mean the same thing. I'm saying his "wrongness" standard would achieve unfair results. Words have meaning, and actions have consequences. How many more cliches do you want to use in this discussion?

You're jumping into the middle of a separate discussion. I'm refuting the statements of GPIA7R and GFGT, not your arguments about the subjectivity of libel claims in the absence of a malice requirement.

This is not a straw man. This is about taking what he says a single logical step into the real world.

Or does he not merit that treatment because you implicitly trust him to make America great one libel lawsuit at a time.

Your argument is not a straw man. The arguments I was refuting are straw men.

If we can't even get to the point of enough intellectual honesty to differentiate properly between "wrong", "unfair", and "mean", then how on earth can we ever have a serious discussion about the impact of what Trump would actually like to change?

 

[T.Lex]

If we can't even get to the point of enough intellectual honesty to differentiate properly between "wrong", "unfair", and "mean", then how on earth can we ever have a serious discussion about the impact of what Trump would actually like to change?

Welcome to INGO, clearly you are new here.

You guys are talking around each other. I'm a lawyer and I'm here to help bring people together.

 

[olhorseman]

For accuracy sake, in Trump's speech (sometime around Feb. 19) he does not say "wrong" or "unfair". His terms are "purposefully negative and false" and "hit piece".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/

 

[ArcadiaGP]

For accuracy sake, in Trump's speech (sometime around Feb. 19) he does not say "wrong" or "unfair". His terms are "purposefully negative and false" and "hit piece".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/

It's up to INGO users to interpret what they want Trump's words to mean, doncha know. Some go with the semantic approach, and take the words 100% literally... others are skeptical of what he means when he says things... because they take his history into account.

We'll never truly know, regardless. He won't be President.

 

[olhorseman]

It's up to INGO users to interpret what they want Trump's words to mean, doncha know. Some go with the semantic approach, and take the words 100% literally... others are skeptical of what he means when he says things... because they take his history into account.

We'll never truly know, regardless. He won't be President.

I seriously believe that if he is the Republican candidate and the polls show him getting beat by the Dem he will withdraw his candidacy (if that is even possible). His ego won't allow him to be thought of as a loser. He will excuse his quitting by other reasons - my employees need me or some such logic.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I seriously believe that if he is the Republican candidate and the polls show him getting beat by the Dem he will withdraw his candidacy (if that is even possible). His ego won't allow him to be thought of as a loser. He will excuse his quitting by other reasons - my employees need me or some such logic.

I don't think he'll leave the race. He'll stay in, and blame the GOP for undermining his campaign.

 

[Thor]

I'm a lawyer and I'm here to help bring people together.

In jail...

 

[olhorseman]

I don't think he'll leave the race. He'll stay in, and blame the GOP for undermining his campaign.

Well, he is the 'teflon' candidate.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I seriously believe that if he is the Republican candidate and the polls show him getting beat by the Dem he will withdraw his candidacy (if that is even possible). His ego won't allow him to be thought of as a loser. He will excuse his quitting by other reasons - my employees need me or some such logic.

Ah, forgot the caveat.... He won't be President... unless there's a terrorist attack on American soil between now and voting time. This EU attack today probably helps him a little.

 

[chipbennett]

Trump's speech to AIPAC:

[video=youtube;2ZGgMJ3QDAQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZGgMJ3QDAQ[/video]

There are a couple of instances of Trump bombast, but overall, the audience received the speech very well.

 

[chipbennett]

AIPAC loved them some Trump yarmulkes. Cruz and Kasich, not so much:

Daniels said he was “inundated” with requests for the Trump yarmulkes from conference-goers and sold out almost immediately.


“I totally underestimated the degree of support that Jewish people who are attending this event have for Trump,” said Daniels, who runs an online yarmulke shop called Marc’s Garden Jubilee. “I probably had about 50 inquiries for Trump yarmulkes that I could not fulfill.”


Daniels said he sold two or three Ted Cruz yarmulkes and three or four for John Kasich. By 8 p.m. on Monday, the vendor said he only had Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders caps left over, and was finding those tougher to unload.

Trump Yarmulkes Are Biggest Seller at AIPAC Conference